Failing to Feed Stock.

Cromwell Argus, Volume L, Issue 2648, 17 November 1919, Page 5

Failing to Feed Stock.

A LOCAL PROSKCUTION. INFORMATION DISMISSED/ In (he Magistrates Court at Cromwell on Thursday, Mr R. Poison, a Bendigo settler, was charged on the information of the police with failing to provide several of his stock with proper and sufficient food. Sergt. M'Glone prosecuted, and defendant, represented by Mr A. M. Brodrick, entered a plea of not guilt}*.

Evidence for the prose cution was given by Assistant-Inspector Taplin, Inspector Manning, Constable Bradley, and Sergt. M'Glone. The text of their evidence was that in consequence of a complaint lodged liny visited defendants property, and found two young draught horses and five head of cattle in a very low condition. One of the horses was down and unable to rise, and was infested with lice. Their condition was apparently due to lack of food, and there were no signs of any food being given to the animals. The milch cows and working horses on the property were in good condition. The cattle were in a big padlock which contained nothing in the way of feed. In his evidence Taplin said he met Mr Poison after his visit to the property, but did not mention the matter to him on account of instructions from his senior oiilcer. Inspector Manning said the stock were in a shocking condition. He saw no signs of disease, and their condition solely due to starvation and neglect. To Mr Brodrick, witness said he had only been in the district months, but did not consider the winter a severe one. Poison, in conversation with witness at Clyde, admitted he had not fed these animals. In opening for the defence, Mr Brodrick said the case was an exceptional one, and a similar one had never previously been brought before the court. It had been a very bad winter and stock were in a low condition. If the inspectors went to other farms thsy would find animals in much the same condition. The defence was that it was a severe winter, the stock did get in a low condition, but evidence would show that defendant had provided feed. In a part of the paddock where the slock were running there was good rough feed, but the inspectors never went near this. In his evidence defendant stated that the stock were shifted into several paddocks and duriug the winter mouths were fed with barley straw. The horses complained about were young and unbroken. It had been a very bad and extended winter. One of the horses got a chill and when he found it was down he immediately attended to it. The stock complained of were in a low condition but no worse than in other places. They were now in a thriving condition. He had sold a considerable number of stock before winter at a sacrifice to ensure having enough feed for the others. He had also bought a stack of straw and one of oaten sheaves, and fed his stock. He cotrd not have done any more. Witness was cross-examined by Sergt, M'Glone at some length He said it. was an absolute untruth to say that one of his cattle was down lor a week. He fed his stock all the winter and turned them into the paddocks in the spring months, but when bad weather followed he brought them in again and fed them. A witness. M'Calluui, gave evidence that he had carted feed for the stock. W. D. Smith said it was an exceptionally bad seasm, and large numbers of stock were lost. Others were in very low condition. S. Fache corroborated the evidence regarding the extreme winter months, In summing up, the Magistrate said it appeared to him that the defendant could not be convicted. He,had watched defendant very closely, and, although he was somewhat excitable, he had given honest evidence. The severe weather conditions seemed to be general Throughout New Zealand. The evidence did not disclose sullicient neglect to wanvnt the court in recording a conviction. Defendant and his servant had carted str-iw to the stock for a period of two months. It was reasonable to suppose that defendant felt himself justified in turning the horses out after he had fed them during the winter, Although defendant may not have fed them to the extent he should, he (the Magistrate) was not satisfied there had been neglect sullicient to justify the court in couvicljng. The information would be dismissed.